Objections Answered | 18
18. Some Early Christians Did Not Refuse To Bear Arms
Objection.
Some ecclesiastical historians inform us that Christians in the early ages of the church, though they contended so firmly for the faith as to suffer martyrdom rather than submit to idolatry,
yet did not refuse to bear arms in defence of their country, even when called upon by heathen magistrates, and their example ought to have weight with us.
Answer.
The testimony of the early Fathers is entitled to regard, but must not be considered as infallible authority, for they were men of like passions with others and cannot be followed safely any farther than they followed Christ.
But the weight of their testimony on the subject, I expect, will be found to stand directly against the lawfulness of war on Christian principles.
Erasmus, who was an eminent scholar, and who was probably as well acquainted with the sentiments of the primitive Fathers as any modern writer, in his Plea against War, replies to the advocates of war as follows:
“They further bring the argument of those opinions or decrees of the Fathers in which war seems to be approved:
Of this sort there are some, but they are only late writers, who appeared when the true spirit of Christianity began to languish, and they are very few.
On the other hand, there are innumerable ones among the writers of acknowledged sanctity that absolutely forbid war, and why should the few rather than the many intrude themselves into our minds?”
Barclay, who examined the writings of the Fathers on this subject, said,
“It is as easy to obscure the sun at midday as to deny that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war.”
Clarkson, who also examined the Fathers, declared that “every Christian writer of the 2nd century who notices the subject makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms.”
Clarkson has made copious extracts from the writings of the Fathers against war, a few of which, as quoted by him and others, shall be inserted here.
Justin Martyr and Tatian both considered the devil the author of war:
Justin Martyr, while speaking of the prophecies relating to the days of peace, said,
“That this prophecy is fulfilled you have good reason to believe, for we who in times past killed one another do not now fight with our enemies.”
Clarkson added:
“It is observable that the word ‘fight’ does not mean to strike, beat, or give a blow, but to fight in war, and the word ‘enemy’ does not mean a common adversary who has injured us, but an enemy of the state.”
Irenaeus said that Christians in his day “had changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and that they knew not how to fight.”
Maximilian and a number of others in the second century actually suffered martyrdom for refusing, on gospel principles, to bear arms.
Celsus made it one of his charges against the Christians that they refused to bear arms for the Emperor. Origen, in the following century, admitted the fact and justified the Christians on the ground of the unlawfulness of war itself.
Tertullian, in his discourse to Scapula, tells us “that no Christians were to be found in the Roman armies.”
In his declaration on the worship of idols he said,
“Though the soldiers came to John and received a certain form to be observed, and though the Centurion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter disarmed every soldier afterwards; for custom can never sanction an illicit act.”
Again, in his Soldier’s Garland, he said,
“Can a soldier’s life be lawful, when Christ has pronounced that he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword?
Can one who professes the peaceable doctrine of the gospel be a soldier when it is his duty not so much as to go to law?
And shall he who is not to avenge his own wrongs be instrumental in bringing others into chains, imprisonment, torment, and death?”
He also wrote that the Christians in his day were sufficiently numerous to have defended themselves, if their religion had permitted them to have recourse to the sword.
There are some marvellous accounts of Christian soldiers related by Eusebius,
but Valesius, in his annotations on these accounts, has abundantly proved them to be fictional, though he was not opposed to war and could have had no other object but to support the truth.
Eusebius, in his orations on Constantine, uses such extravagant adulation, which falls but little short of idolatry, that his account of Christian warriors ought to be received with great caution, especially when we remember that church and state were, in his day, united.
On the whole, it is very evident that the early Christians did refuse to bear arms,
and although one of their objections was the idolatrous rites connected with military service, yet they did object on account of the unlawfulness of war itself.
We have no good evidence of Christians being found in the armies until we have evidence of great corruption in the church.
But admitting that we had good evidence that there were professing Christians in the army at an early period of the church, I expect that it would be of little importance,
for the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the heathen armies were of such a nature as to be totally inconsistent with Christian character, and the example of idolatrous Christians surely ought to have no weight.
Some objections of less importance might be stated which have from time to time been made against the sentiments here advocated, but to state and reply to everything that might be said is not necessary.
Specious objections have been and still are made to almost every doctrine of Christianity. Mankind can generally find some plausible arguments to support whatever it wishes to believe.
The pleas in favour of war are very congenial with the natural feelings of the human heart,
and unless men will examine them with a serious, candid, and prayerful disposition to ascertain the truth as it is in Jesus, they will be very likely to imbibe and defend error.
The writer, though far from supposing that everything he has said on a subject that has been so little discussed is free from error,
is conscious of having endeavoured to examine it with seriousness and candour, and feels satisfied that the general sentiments he has advanced are according to godliness.
He sincerely hopes that everyone who may peruse these pages will do it in the meek and unbiased spirit of the gospel, and then judge
- whether war can be reconciled with the lamb-like example of Christ;
- whether it is really forgiving the trespasses of enemies, loving and doing them good, and returning good for evil;
for if it is not, it is unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit and the precepts of Christianity.
All who earnestly desire and look for the millennial glory of the church should consider that it could never arrive until the spirit and practice of war are abolished.
All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity cannot but ardently desire that wars may cease to the ends of the earth and that people should embrace each other as brethren.
If so, is it not their duty to do all in their power to promote so benevolent an object?
Ought not every individual Christian to act in such a manner that, if every other person imitated his example, it would be best for the whole?
If so, would they not immediately renounce everything that leads to wars and fighting and embrace everything that would promote that glorious reign of righteousness and peace for which they earnestly hope, long, and pray?
“The work of righteousness shall be peace,
and the effect of righteousness is quietness and assurance forever.”